OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the quality of gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing and discuss the advantages of microbiological surveillance testing of these endoscopes. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the results of endoscope sampling performed from October 1, 2006, through December 31, 2014, in a gastrointestinal endoscopy unit of a teaching hospital equipped with 89 endoscopes and 3 automated endoscope reprocessors, with an endoscopy quality assurance program in place. The compliance rate was defined as the proportion of the results classified at target or alert levels according to the French guidelines. A multivariate analysis (logistic regression) was used to identify the parameters influencing compliance. RESULTS: A total of 846 samples were taken. The overall compliance rate was 86% and differed significantly depending on the sampling context (scheduled or not scheduled), the type of endoscope, and the season. No other parameter was associated with compliance. A total of 118 samples carried indicator microorganisms such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Enterobacteriaceae, and Candida sp. CONCLUSION: The systematic use of an automated endoscope reprocessor does not provide totally satisfactory compliance. Microbiological surveillance is indispensable to monitor reprocessing, reinforce good practices (endoscopes, reprocessing units), and detect endoscopes requiring early technical maintenance.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the quality of gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing and discuss the advantages of microbiological surveillance testing of these endoscopes. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the results of endoscope sampling performed from October 1, 2006, through December 31, 2014, in a gastrointestinal endoscopy unit of a teaching hospital equipped with 89 endoscopes and 3 automated endoscope reprocessors, with an endoscopy quality assurance program in place. The compliance rate was defined as the proportion of the results classified at target or alert levels according to the French guidelines. A multivariate analysis (logistic regression) was used to identify the parameters influencing compliance. RESULTS: A total of 846 samples were taken. The overall compliance rate was 86% and differed significantly depending on the sampling context (scheduled or not scheduled), the type of endoscope, and the season. No other parameter was associated with compliance. A total of 118 samples carried indicator microorganisms such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Enterobacteriaceae, and Candida sp. CONCLUSION: The systematic use of an automated endoscope reprocessor does not provide totally satisfactory compliance. Microbiological surveillance is indispensable to monitor reprocessing, reinforce good practices (endoscopes, reprocessing units), and detect endoscopes requiring early technical maintenance.
Authors: Marco J Bruno; Margreet C Vos; Arjan W Rauwers; Anne F Voor In 't Holt; Jolanda G Buijs; Woutrinus de Groot; Bettina E Hansen Journal: Gut Date: 2018-04-10 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Harminder Singh; Donald R Duerksen; Gale Schultz; Carol Reidy; Pat DeGagne; Nancy Olson; Zoann Nugent; Michelle J Alfa Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2019-01-30
Authors: Valentina Marchese; Daniele Di Carlo; Gaetano Fazio; Santi Mauro Gioè; Angelo Luca; Rossella Alduino; Monica Rizzo; Fabio Tuzzolino; Francesco Monaco; Pier Giulio Conaldi; Bruno Douradinha; Giuseppina Di Martino Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 3.390